The "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" beating "Vast Left Wing" Voting for Best Science Weblog

The "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" beating "Vast Left Wing" Voting for Best Science Weblog

Its the last day of voting for the 2007 Weblog Awards and it looks like the leader in the “Best Science Blog” category at this point is “Climate Audit,” a bastion for those who actually still believe that global warming is natural and humans have nothing to do with it.

In other words, Climate Audit is a climate change denial website.

As with anything climate change, the whole affair has turned into a left wing blog vs. right wing blog fight for who can pull the most votes to their side.

Of course, I'm being totally unbiased when I say that the site “Bad Astronomy” which is running a very close second place right now to “Climate Audit” is definitely worth a vote or two (um, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ya know what I mean)!

It’s already a left-right battle too much. Science should be (I know it isn’t, but on principle …) immune to all of that. It shouldn’t be a popularity contest anyway and the whole idea of voting for a website on that basis is anathema to me. The merits of individual arguments should rule. Increasing the number of votes only gives undeserved validity to the whole process.

Okay, but I’d rather the readers of those uber-ridiculous sites move to a different location. It’s an admission by those sites that they, themselves, suck. And if a heap of their readership goes to ClimateAudit, it would be a considerable step up for them in terms of critical thinking, with a side benefit of McIntyre et al having to deal with their silliness. I don’t know if McIntyre would really be very proud if he knew that a large number of his votes came from people who frequent those other sites. I don’t know about Bad Astronomy, having never visited there, and that’s a more personal reason for my declining to vote.

Sorry for being ambiguous – “hmmm” in my last post meant, “that gives me something to think about,” rather than, “you’re a kook,” which is sometimes how I use “hmmm”. I hope you can tell that by my attempt to struggle through those thoughts. Best wishes.

I went and had a look before I voted (contrary to many deniers, we aren’t AGW sheep!), and found it to be a very good site. The Astronomer is someone who entered the AGW discussion cold on the basis of a statement by Inhofe, and with an open mind started following the science, critiquing the deniers’ points along the way, and the rest, as they say, is history. It certainly deserves an award more than Climate Audit, IMHO.

Huffington Post: “Another finalist is Climate Audit, which is an anti-global warming site.”

(As opposed to what? A pro- Global Warming site?)

Daily Kos: “We only have a few hours to strike back.”

Desmogblog: “Of course, I’m being totally unbiased when I say that the site “Bad Astronomy” which is running a very close second place right now to “Climate Audit” is definitely worth a vote or two (um, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, ya know what I mean)!

“Yes, we know what you mean, Kevin. You want people to cheat.” In other words to act like a rightwinger. The term “freep” comes from the website Free Republic, which has been cheating on online polls for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic#Influencing_online_polls

Ha-ha! You do realise what website this is, don’t you?! What “rules” on Desmogblog is ad-hominem attacks.

What? You didn’t know this site is run by a PR company?

Judging arguments based on their merits?! If I didn’t know any better, Steve L, I’d say you’re starting to sound like one of those filthy crypto-denierificationalists?

“Increasing the number of votes only gives undeserved validity to the whole process.”

Odd how the Global Warming Cult enlessly (and irrelevantly) claim they have a “consensus” – as though science were a democracy – and yet in this case, you denounce tabulating the popularity of mere web logs.

Rob, it seems to be you who haven’t noticed that this is a site run by a PR company. The reason I come here is not to argue the science. I would go to a science site to do that. The purpose of this site, for me, is to learn about ways that the public (ie. lay rather than scientific) discussion of the issue is manipulated. As I’ve stated many times, I would love to see the science that opposes the consensus that AGW is real and presents real risks. Could you oblige once? Being somewhat conservative in nature (I grew up in Alberta, after all) I would like to believe that it’s all false, but AGW deniers can only come up with arguments (not good science) that are easily rebutted by going to any number of sites.

I realized some time ago that something was/is going on with the climate. Simply by having an outside job for years.
The IPCC, and their studies, alerted me to the simple fact that my humble “hunch” was correct.
I’ve read James Lovelock, Tim Flannery and others; some in print, some through the net. All with footnote, after footnote, after footnote backing them up.
I also looked at the other side: the ‘deniers’.
I quickly discovered that people such as Ball, Milloy, Harris, Singer and the rest of their crew; have no credibility. They ‘cherry-pick’, twist facts around and many times simply lie. I’ve read their arguments, gone to their sources to check the ‘facts’ and many times after reading the WHOLE source, found their arguments had gaps in them big enough to drive a Mack truck through!
I come here, and to other sites, in an attempt to learn what’s happening on the political/social front on the topic of climate change.
Rob is a distraction. He’s bound and determined to put his two-cents worth in, even if he’s a nickel short!
One thing I can’t abide is stupidity, especially when it’s repeated….on and on and on…
He must be closely related to Senator Inhofe.
Sorry for the rant…but it’s been building up…

I think from a social/political learning perspective, first person rants are alright. It’s good to learn what makes people tick. Rob’s rants are directed outward. That’s probably what makes him so annoying. But it probably also reflects some really deep personal problems on his part. I try to look on it as an objective outsider and not get riled-up. It’s not worth it. Take care.

You and tamino both must have gotten into a bad batch of eggnog with your wild-eyed rants first thing in the new year. Thanks for letting me know that WUWT is a finalist, I had missed that. Anthony will be getting my vote.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

The phrase “clean coal” has about as much merit as saying “sanitary sewage,” but that hasn’t stopped the industry and pro-coal talking heads from repeating that phrase ad nauseum to the American public.

The Orwellian industry buzzphrase was so successful that the Obama administration, as part of the 2009 stimulus package, pledged more than $1 billion to create the largest carbon-capturing system known as FutureGen 2.0. The...